In Texas, A Woman’s Life is Worth $150

Texas’ law allowing people to use deadly force to protect their property allowed a man who killed an escort to go free – because she wouldn’t have sex with him.

My first thought when I read this story about a jury acquitting a man (Ezekiel Gilbert) who shot a woman (Lenora Ivie Frago) when she refused to have sex with him after taking his money, was, “What the actual f*ck?!” Seriously, that’s all that my mind could muster: outrange and disbelief. And then I sat down and tried to break apart all the different bits to this story. I tried to figure out what, the actual fuck, was going on here.

Deadly Force to Retrieve Property

So first, let me just say I totally understand the attachment people have to their things. I nearly had a panic attack while tearing apart my room yesterday looking for my class ring that I thought I’d lost. Turns out I’d just misplaced it, which was such a relief. Last week I actually did lose my USB drive and though the only things on it were backups and unimportant bits and bobs, it stung. I’m looking around my room right now, and there are plenty of things in here that I’d be absolutely cut up about if they were lost or stolen. So, yeah, I totally understand being attached to property.

The thing is, though, no piece of property is worth killing another human being over, even something as important to me as my class ring. So I really do not understand the Texas law that says it’s okay to use deadly force to retrieve stolen property at night. Well, I suppose I do understand it, at least intellectually. The law was designed to allow homeowners to protect their things in the event that someone invades their home at night. And it was designed to protect people who are out at night in the event that they are mugged.

It’s designed to allow “good” and “law-abiding” citizens to act in a way that would otherwise suddenly make them no longer “good” or “law-abiding,” and get away with it. There is a great divide in the way the law handles property owners, and those who may be desperate enough to try to take someone else’s property. We still live in a world where owning things gives someone a certain amount of protection from the legal consequences of their actions. This Texas law is totally part of that; it’s classist in the extreme.

Prostitution Is Illegal in Texas

One of the particularly problematic aspects of this case is that it isn’t a “law-abiding” citizen using deadly force to take back their property. It was a case of someone paying another person to break the law, and then shooting them to take back their money when the other person refused to commit the crime. If I were to pay a drug dealer for some cocaine, and then the drug dealer refused to give me the cocaine, would I then be within my rights to shoot the dealer to get my money back? I don’t think so.

Here’s where we get into the gendered nature of this situation. Why, oh why, can’t we just do prostitution the right way? It shouldn’t be illegal and it should be regulated. And for goodness sake, we should recognise that though a prostitute is providing a service which involves her body, she isn’t selling her body. Her body is still hers to do with what she will, regardless of how much money changes hands.*

Unfortunately we are still hung up on the idea that a prostitute isn’t really a full human being, and that she isn’t deserving of the same amount of bodily autonomy that other people are. We’re told that her body is actually property. If she’s willing to have sex for money, the underlying argument goes, then she deserves whatever she gets. Or, in this case, if she was willing to pretend to be a prostitute in order to scam some guy out of $150, then she must really deserve what she gets. A woman who is willing to have sex for money is considered bad enough. A woman who is willing to trick a man into thinking he’ll get to have sex, and then refuse…well that’s considered horrible enough to warrant getting shot.

The Conclusion

Something that Gilbert said has stuck with me: “I sincerely regret the loss of the life of Ms. Frago. I’ve been in a mental prison the past four years of my life. I have nightmares. If I see guns on TV where people are getting killed, I change the channel.” Some people have been reacting to this with disgust because it makes things even worse that Gilbert is trying to make himself into some kind of victim. In a lot of ways, I agree with that assessment. On the other hand, I also totally believe Gilbert when he says this.

The thing is, unless Gilbert is a total psychopath, shooting Frago over $150 is probably going to haunt him for the rest of his life. Gilbert was sold a bill of goods. He, like so many people, bought into the hard-line individualistic, capitalist notion that property is worth shooting someone over. He, like so many people, bought into the patriarchal notion that women’s bodies, especially a prostitute’s, are not their own. When Gilbert shot Frago, he was confronted with the lie of those two notions, and now he’s mentally and emotionally suffering because of it.

The problem, though, is that legally he’s been let off the hook. So that bill of goods Gilbert was sold is sold to the rest of us, yet again. We’ve once again been told that property is worth more than a human being, and a prostitute’s body is property. A man killed a woman over $150 and a promise of sex, and we’ve all just been told that it’s excusable. It’s fine. It’s just the way it is.

About HeatherN

Heather N. is a Californian living in the United Kingdom. In order to survive, she has developed a keen appreciation for the color grey, rain, and sausage rolls. She spends far too much time reading, writing, blogging, and gaming. You can also find her saying witty things on Twitter.

Leave a Reply

87 Comments on "In Texas, A Woman’s Life is Worth $150"

Notify of new replies to this comment

Notify of new replies to this comment

Sort by:
newest |
oldest
| most voted

Guest

Barbara

3 years 5 months ago

They robbed him. She was killed. If you decide to rob someone you risk being shot. End of story. Everything else is BS..

0

| ReplyShareHide Replies ∧

Guest

cw123

3 years 5 months ago

The man wasnt found guilty because what he did does not fit the criteria for the crime he was charged with according to a jury of his peers. The prosecutor screwed up and charged him incorrectly. They may as well have charged him with arson.

Charge him with the appropriate crime and this jackass GOES TO JAIL where he should be. The emotive reasoning around here is incredibly disingenuous.

Right so, as I explained in another comment, manslaughter is something which is inclusive in a charge of murder. The judge, not the prosecution, should have recommended that the jury consider a charge of manslaughter on the table. So we’re left with the question of why the judge didn’t do this. Absent any other information, the best bet is that he believed that Gilberts’ actions were justified enough to warrant him getting off entirely.

0

| ReplyShareHide Replies ∧

Guest

Archy

3 years 5 months ago

The silly thing is if you fall asleep at the wheel and kill a pedestrian/whatever you may face an involuntary manslaughter charge…

0

| ReplyShareHide Replies ∧

Guest

John Anderson

3 years 5 months ago

“the best bet is that he believed that Gilberts’ actions were justified enough to warrant him getting off entirely”

I don’t know. People make mistakes. Most people are lucky enough that their mistakes don’t kill someone or let a killer go. For you to believe that, you would need to believe that the judge knew the prosecutor over charged the defendant and that he couldn’t convict on murder. Does that mean that the prosecutor values a woman’s life more than a man’s since he’s willing to put a guy away for more years than he deserves?

0

| ReplyShareHide Replies ∧

Guest

cw

3 years 5 months ago

If I understand the procedures correctly, in Texas the prosecutor is the one who requests lesser included offenses. The prosecutor “went for broke” on a murder charge in this case.

There is one more thing I’d like to point out about victim blaming when it comes to the battered women’s defense and it is that not all women who use that defense are battered women. Some are murderers looking for an excuse to get out of prison. Regardless of credibility or feasibility, I’ve never seen an instance where the defense was criticized as victim blaming. It has always been treated as a legitimate defense. Most recently the Jodi Arias trial comes to mind. 99% of the commentators I’ve read believe she’s lying partly because she’s changed her story three times,… Read more »

Yes, by all means let’s talk again about how rarely someone uses the “battered woman defence” though they aren’t battered. That has absolutely NO bearing on this article at all.

0

| ReplyShareHide Replies ∧

Guest

John Anderson

3 years 5 months ago

You brought up the issue of victim blaming and suggested that it was never OK. I’m simply pointing out that in many even liberal / feminist / progressive circles there are instances where victim blaming is seen as legitimate. Someone else pointed out that battered women’s defense was self defense. I’m simply pointing out that it’s not always the case, but that doesn’t seem to make the defense by victim blaming any less socially acceptable even in liberal / feminist / progressive circles. That means that victim blaming is acceptable (by most) in certain cases. Whether the actions of the… Read more »

So it’s been brought to my attention that Gilbert didn’t shoot Frago directly. He shot at her moving car and a fragment of a bullet which had ricochetted hit her. This is what eventually killed her. The thing is, this fact doesn’t really improve the narrative. Gilbert was willing to draw a gun and fire at a moving car in order to get his money back. He didn’t intent to kill Frago, but he was certainly willing to harm Frago in order to retrieve his money. He was trying to crash a car, for goodness sake. Actually, all this fact… Read more »

0

| ReplyShareHide Replies ∧

Guest

cw

3 years 5 months ago

I dont think the judge is the person who decides what lesser included offenses should be considered. Isnt that the job of the prosecutor?

0

| ReplyShareHide Replies ∧

Guest

John Anderson

3 years 5 months ago

@ HeatherN

“A prostitute’s body isn’t her own.”

Yes it is. She wasn’t shot for not having sex with him. She was shot at for not returning the $150.

Why isn’t a prostitute the owner of his/her body? While I might be disappointed if my daughter opted to be a sex worker– right minded people should respect anyone who chooses to express themselves as sex workers, hell there have been various contributors here at GMP who are sex workers and seem to be happy hookers. It wasn’t long ago that, some, feminist thinkers were lauding sex workers as self empowered…..

I assume you’re referring to this bit: “And with that, we’re back to the conclusion I first came to in this piece. The judge had been sold the same bill of goods that Gilbert was sold. A prostitute’s body isn’t her own. $150 is worth shooting at someone over.”

That’s not MY opinion…that’s part of the “bill of goods” I’m referencing. That’s part of what the mainstream says…$150 isn’t ACTUALLY worth shooting anyone over. A prostitute’s body IS her own…but that’s now what our mainstream discourse says.

I’ll agree there is more to it than theft of services or retrieving stolen property but I agree that the “A woman’s life is worth $150” is very sensational and is being used to make more of this story than it is. From what people have been posting on facebook, twitter, and all across the net this story has been made out to be a man that actively intented to kill her when it looks like that was not the case. Yes he should still be held responsible for her death. But I don’t think was a case of “he… Read more »

He shot at her because he thought he was owed sex. He was willing to crash her car because he thought he was owed sex. He didn’t mean to kill her, yeah…but he did mean to harm her; he did mean to use force to get what he thought he was owed, which was either sex or his money back.

0

| ReplyShareHide Replies ∧

Guest

Danny

3 years 5 months ago

He shot at her because he thought he was owed sex.

or

but he did mean to harm her; he did mean to use force to get what he thought he was owed, which was either sex or his money back.

Which is it?

Did he shoot at her because he thought he was owed sex or did he shoot at her because he wanted his money back knowing there would be no sex?

0

| ReplyShareHide Replies ∧

Guest

John Anderson

3 years 5 months ago

He thought he was owed sex because he thought that’s what he paid for, which makes complete sense to me, since I can’t see anyone hiring an escort for 30 minutes and I can’t see a legitimate escort not refunding the money if she decided that she didn’t want to spend the 30 minutes with a client (not having sex).

It is amazing how many people are actually ignoring the facts of this case to make some ‘bones’.

he was acquitted because of mens rea, he did not have the intent (guilty mind), this had nothing whatsoever to do with the fact she was a prostitute , a woman or anthing else and that is why he was acquitted.

For GODS SAKE people, at least do some reading.

0

| ReplyShareHide Replies ∧

Guest

cw123

3 years 5 months ago

But that wouldn’t fit the narrative. There is OUTRAGE to be had here. rabble rabble rabble

0

| ReplyShareHide Replies ∧

Guest

Danny

3 years 5 months ago

That’s what I’m sensing here.

Yes this is horrible event and I’ll be the first to say that he must be held responsible for his actions because regardless of why he shot at her he did kill her. However what’s bugging me is that this case is being forced into the narrative of “Here’s a case of a man thinking women owes him sex and if they don’t get it they are free to do whatever they want to get what they want.”

It’s a case of a man thinking that a prostitute, who is a woman and who is in a profession which is very closely associated with women, owed him sex and thus he could do whatever he wanted. You asked below whether he shot at her because he thought she owed him sex or money…”which is it,” you asked. The answer is both. The series of events are as follows: he thought he paid her for sex, she didn’t have sex with him, he wanted his money back, he shot at her. Explicitly, directly…it’s probably he shot at her to… Read more »

0

| ReplyShareHide Replies ∧

Guest

Archy

3 years 5 months ago

“But when you look at this is a bit more closely, you realise that he thought he deserved his money back because even though the whole transaction never explicitly stated she’d have sex with him, he ASSUMED she would…because escort is assumed to mean prostitute…because prostitution is illegal. ”

Did you read or hear their conversations or something because I see no proof of this, only people guessing.

0

| ReplyShareHide Replies ∧

Guest

John Anderson

3 years 5 months ago

“Did you read or hear their conversations or something because I see no proof of this, only people guessing.”

Yeah, my thought too. I think it’s just as likely if not more that they agreed to have sex prior to her going there, but her intention was to take his money counting on him not telling the police because prostitution is illegal. I wonder how many guys she scammed. That doesn’t mean she deserved death.

0

| ReplyShareHide Replies ∧

Guest

Archy

3 years 5 months ago

Could be, but hey we can’t question the victims motives because that’s bad! I don’t think anyone will find out except the guy himself and any accomplices to the scam if it exists. Is it common for escorts to never have sex, just hangout? Or is it over 90% of the time a loophole method around the prostitution legality issue? If it’s extremely common to have sex then it sounds like a scam. If no sex is going to happen, why wouldn’t the escort discuss this first? Obviously there will be people who think they’re gonna get laid and get… Read more »

0

| ReplyShareHide Replies ∧

Guest

Danny

3 years 5 months ago

And she didn’t see that assumption coming considering that he hired her for 30 min and of the 20 they did spend together they stayed in his place the entire time? And he thought that by paying her, she owed him sex. Yes the payment points to him thinking she owed him sex but not the violence that took place afterwards. And it was sex, not “do with her body what he would”. Again let me say that I’m not trying to say that he shouldn’t be held responsiblef for his action but these sensational titles (such as the “Texas… Read more »

0

| ReplyShareHide Replies ∧

Guest

Jules

3 years 5 months ago

I am a gun lover. I am a political conservative. I am an NRA Member. I am a staunch advocate of respect for property rights (personal and real). However, deadly force should ONLY be used when your life is threatened. You should not be able to use deadly force to prevent someone from taking your property or retrieving your property. Obviously such laws exist in Texas. But that is Texas, a state that was settled largely by outlaws, misfits, and criminals. Based on the currents laws in Texas, the man was “justified” in using deadly force to get his $150… Read more »

0

| ReplyShareHide Replies ∧

Guest

Joshua Bennett

3 years 6 months ago

Jadehawk points out that escort services are legal in Texas: you can sell your companionship, just not sex. If you decide on your own initiative to have sex after the night of companionship… well, that’s perfectly legal. So unless her ad specifically offered sex, she was not actually guilty of theft.

Of course, that has no relevance to whether she should have been shot. It’s just icing on the injustice cake.

That, right there, is the problem with making prostitution illegal. Or, well, it’s A problem with it. Perfectly legal escort services are set up, and it’s all “understood” and assumed that they’re actually prostitution services. Explicit consent and negotiation is so important for sex, especially between strangers, and we have a system set up which makes that impossible.

0

| ReplyShareHide Replies ∧

Guest

Random_Stranger

3 years 5 months ago

@HeatherN, Jhoanna,

While we’re on the topic of the merits of legalizing prostitution -why do you think prostitution continues to be in the main, an act of men buying and women providing?

Do you suppose such a gendered market is equitable and should be accepted? If so, how would you square acceptance of gendered divisions in this market with an insistence on gender liberation in other markets? As feminists, do you think male buyers/female sellers are an inevitable and irreducable quality of biology or purely a cultural artifact?

Illegal prostitution is one of the worst things to happen to women and children in our country. If we could have prostitution that is regulated and carefully watched, the sex trafficking within US borders could be greatly reduced, as well as sex slavery. It’s devastating, the way it is.

0

| ReplyShareHide Replies ∧

Guest

Archy

3 years 5 months ago

“Illegal prostitution is one of the worst things to happen to women and children in our country.” And men, there are male sex workers though society does like to ignore this lil fact. “If we could have prostitution that is regulated and carefully watched, the sex trafficking within US borders could be greatly reduced, as well as sex slavery. It’s devastating, the way it is.” Amen to that. In Australia we’re doing it and I hope it is helping, though there is the issue of the visa where sex workers cannot get a visa to work here and have to… Read more »

0

| ReplyShareHide Replies ∧

Guest

Random_Stranger

3 years 5 months ago

” women and children” ughhh…hate that phase, and I think feminists would hate it to.

Its specifically designed to single out men as agents of evil or sacrifice or whatever dirty work needs to be done, or is being done. And reduces women to feeble, harmless objects of affection and innocence incapable of exercising individual responsibility…..or well, children.

0

| ReplyShareHide Replies ∧

Guest

Archy

3 years 5 months ago

“” women and children” ughhh…hate that phase, and I think feminists would hate it to. Its specifically designed to single out men as agents of evil or sacrifice or whatever dirty work needs to be done, or is being done. And reduces women to feeble, harmless objects of affection and innocence incapable of exercising individual responsibility…..or well, children.” YES YES YES. It’s also a ploy for sympathy n caring over women n children vs men. Violence against women n children! 200 people died including 20 women and children, etc. It’s especially offensive when there are male sex workers because in… Read more »

I didn’t say it has anything to do with gender or class…
And @Jules I think the phrase here is Jack Squat, someone doesn’t know Jack Shit on a subject and a guy who claims to be an expert and knows jack shit is a Jack Leg…

On top of that, she did show up. She just wouldn’t have sex with him. And THAT is why she got shot. And the sex would have made it illegal.

0

| ReplyShareHide Replies ∧

Guest

Jules

3 years 5 months ago

@Joanna…

“And the sex would have made it illegal.”

And. Your point is?

0

| ReplyShareHide Replies ∧

Guest

Jules

3 years 5 months ago

How do you know she ever intended to have sex with him? Sounds like he was set up to be robbed. I don’t know. Now it’s a gender and class issue. BS!

Just because the act is illegal means zippy. It’s called committing a crime.

No one really knows what REALLY happened except for him and the deceased. All else is pure speculation.

I would have been equally aggressive in getting my $$$$ back, but not to an extent of killing someone or putting myself at risk. People to have a universal right to self defense AND the defense of property.

0

| ReplyShareHide Replies ∧

Guest

John Anderson

3 years 5 months ago

Do we know that she didn’t agree to have sex and then change her mind? There was a case in Illinois of a woman agreeing to have sex with a boy for money. She goes to his house sprays him with mace and steals his money and Ipad. She never had any intention of having sex with him, but led him to believe that she was a prostitute. From what I understand the agreement was that she would spend 30 minutes with him as an escort. Do we know that she fulfilled her bargain? I suspect that she went there.… Read more »

There’s this saying that you really shouldn’t ever pull a gun unless you’re willing to kill someone. He didn’t mean to kill her, I get that…but he was willing to shoot at her. He was willing to cause her car to crash, which would have injured her or potentially killed her even if the bullet hadn’t ricocheted. It should not be legal to shoot at someone, or at someone’s car, just because they stole from you. It is still suggesting that property is worth more than life. And it actually doesn’t matter whether she agreed to have sex for money… Read more »

0

| ReplyShareHide Replies ∧

Guest

John Anderson

3 years 5 months ago

“If he had reported her for fraud, or something, then it’d matter.” I agree with you. These are the cases where I have issue with the battered women’s defense. The cases where they have done nothing prior to killing their significant other. No reports to the police. No restraining orders. No contacting shelters or victims services. I have loads of sympathy for people who try to do things the right way and the law doesn’t help them. “Her motivations for being there are immaterial.” There is a saying. If you play with fire you’re going to get burned. I think… Read more »

0

| ReplyShareHide Replies ∧

Guest

Danny

3 years 5 months ago

People aren’t looking at this as a tragedy of two people making wrong decisions. They’re looking at it as he’s totally guilty and she’s totally innocent. We had a comment here where someone tries to point out that what she did was legal and suggests that makes his reaction and the juries verdict even more unjust.
Agreed.

This story is on a quick course to becoming another piece of fodder for the “battle of the sex”.

Don’t bother looking at the entire situation and consider the contexts and implications. Just pick a side and defend it to the last breath.

This whole victim blaming is just a load of crack. It’s like saying that someone who smokes cigarettes “deserves” to die slowly of lung cancer. It’s a cold hearted, dis-compassionate, cold, and cruel way of thinking. What’s the difference between a prostitute and a gal that leads a guy on that he’ll get laid of he takes her out to dinner? I knew a douche who once asked for his date to pay for half her meal, because she didn’t want to “just” blow him. Would Gilbert have committed murder in that case, and would he legally have gotten away… Read more »

0

| ReplyShareHide Replies ∧

Guest

Random_Stranger

3 years 5 months ago

totally need to read the link Elissa provided above….the settlement had nothing to do with property rights and everything to do with a prosecution unable to prove intent to kill in a murder case.

….also, its kinda douchey to expect someone to pay for your meal -so maybe they were perfect for each other.

More accurately — In Texas a whore’s life is worth $ 150– I’m not saying that’s appropriate,,,
I’m sure that most Texans would put a higher value on the head of a librarian or Hooter’s waitress…
(In the rest of the world a whore’s life is worth closer to 50 cents.)
So I wonder what other civil actions one can settle with a gun in TX…

0

| ReplyShareHide Replies ∧

Guest

Jules

3 years 5 months ago

@Drew,

This has jack shit to do with gender or class. This has to do with perhaps an overzealous “right” to defend and retrieve property (personal and real).

Yes, it is awful a human being lost their life over $150. But, the issue is much bigger than the $150.

I didn’t say it has anything to do with gender or class…
And @Jules I think the phrase here is Jack Squat, someone doesn’t know Jack Shit on a subject and a guy who claims to be an expert and knows jack shit is a Jack Leg…

The correction will probably have to wait for the fact check on the Kaitlin Hunt/ xoJane piece…
Hence my earlier comment “this isn’t journalism, it’s opinion or blogism or apocryphal storyism…

0

| ReplyShareHide Replies ∧

Guest

Archy

3 years 5 months ago

“The much more plausible reason for the verdict is that the jury believed the defendant’s claim that he didn’t intend to shoot the victim. Per Texas’ homicide statute, the prosecution needed to prove that Gilbert “intentionally or knowingly” killed Frago or intended to cause her “serious bodily injury.” The defense argued that Gilbert lacked the requisite intent for murder because when he shot at the car as Frago and the owner of the escort service drove away, he was aiming for the tire. The bullet hit the tire and a fragment, “literally the size of your fingernail,” according to Defense… Read more »

I think gender also comes into play when considering the attention this case got. If a male crack dealer was shot in the process of robbing his customer, how much sympathy would he get? I’m guessing very few would care. I would wager that many people would even be celebrating his death for being a parasite. I don’t see many celebrating her death so there’s that. One problem here is he admitted to soliciting for sex which I would think would make him liable to some degree because he was engaging in illegal activity. Another issue is it’s hard to… Read more »

0

| ReplyShareHide Replies ∧

Guest

Random_Stranger

3 years 5 months ago

” If you provide “companionship” to strangers, or if you receive it from strangers, you never know who you’re going to meet”

….yes, I totally agree! Also, never provide a stranger lunch or dentistry….or do their taxes, especially their taxes. You’re totally asking for it if you’re in the business of sitting down with total strangers and filing their 1040s.

When the purpose is to engage in “intimate acts” that may or may not be legal, then yes you do need to take special precautions. And many involved in this field do that by screening/reading reviews. If you read several reviews about a tax preparer engaging in fraud, would you take your taxes there? How about a dentist who has had several complaints made against him or her? Would you choose to live in a place after finding out that there is rampant crime, poor schools, etc.? No, you do your homework. Well, most of us would do our homework.… Read more »

0

| ReplyShareHide Replies ∧

Guest

Haruhana

3 years 6 months ago

“If a male crack dealer was shot in the process of robbing his customer, how much sympathy would he get?” – Dude, a crack dealer is not a prostitute. Someone who sells drugs do it while knowing that he may be ruining lives. A prostitute? Offers some fun for your money. Didn’t you pay attention to the article? She didn’t get any sympathy.

0

| ReplyShareHide Replies ∧

Guest

Random_Stranger

3 years 5 months ago

“Someone who sells drugs do it while knowing that he may be ruining lives. A prostitute? Offers some fun for your money. ‘

…well we’re entering into some shades of moral equivalency here with just a twinge of racism…I could argue that the drug dealer offers just a bit more fun for your money…I could also argue that the prostitute destroys just a tad more lives…It seems untenable to hold the dealer in contempt while judging the prostitute harmless. Are they not both dealing in vice?

0

| ReplyShareHide Replies ∧

Guest

Archy

3 years 5 months ago

How about a weed dealer? Or someone selling bootleg music?

The sex worker didn’t deliver on the goods, it’s theft if she didn’t return the cash but not worthy of shooting. If he had a gun, why not just say gimme back the cash whilst holding it? Why go as far to murder?

Wait a sec, are you seriously comparing self-defence (which is what the “battered women defence” is) to killing someone for property? What the hell?

0

| ReplyShareHide Replies ∧

Guest

John Anderson

3 years 5 months ago

@ HeatherN “Wait a sec, are you seriously comparing self-defence (which is what the “battered women defence” is) to killing someone for property? What the hell?” Np, I’m just pointing out that there are some instances where society (whether right or wrong) has decided that it is OK to blame the victim. In most battered women’s defenses, the woman is not in immediate danger and is responding to an attack (when the claim is legitimate, but sometimes is used to try to escape a murder charge) that had stopped for some time in the past. They would otherwise simply claim… Read more »

John, I think I get what you’re saying. That in the case of a person using self-defense, we actually DO blame the victim (ie the one who is killed in self-defense).

But there’s a problem with that. When the person who was killed was done so to save another’s life, the one who is killed is NOT the victim. S/he is the perpetrator, who ended up dead.

Maybe that makes it clearer.

0

| ReplyShareHide Replies ∧

Guest

John Anderson

3 years 5 months ago

@ Joanna

The battered women’s defense is not a self defense claim in the classic sense that in almost every instance the woman is not in immediate danger otherwise she just claims self defense.

0

| ReplyShareHide Replies ∧

Guest

Archy

3 years 5 months ago

It can be enough to just be in fear of your life I think for that defense. I would hope that light levels of physical abuse wouldn’t be able to trigger it, eg. slapping, otherwise I could have shot my ex and claimed battered partner eh?. The person shot is still a victim of one crime, but their death is justified by saving another. Problem is this gets tricky when shelters, etc exist and the shooting was done in a non-imminent danger sense, where they feared that one day, not that exact time they would be killed.

To sort of reiterate what Joanna said…in the case of self defence, the person who was killed isn’t the victim.

0

| ReplyShareHide Replies ∧

Guest

Archy

3 years 5 months ago

I’m not sure he was trying to compare, but asking the separate question of is victim blaming ever ok.

0

| ReplyShareHide Replies ∧

Guest

Archy

3 years 5 months ago

“Yup. You are victim blaming and that is unacceptable.” Actually he’s warning people engaged in such activities to not rob someone as they may be carrying a weapon. That’s common sense, don’t rob people or you may end up shot. That applies to EVERYONE. It’s his fault for pulling the trigger but if it’s true she stole the cash then she has provoked a reaction from him. If she didn’t want to do the job then refund the money would be the honorable thing, but as she is dead her side may never be told. I would tell every person… Read more »

Many laws in USA and elsewhere are good for nothing – outdated – offering legal loopholes which are serving the criminal more than protecting the victim. To be honest, this guy is a case for a mental hospital and this law has to be changed. I have to admit he had an excellent defense council doing a great job and this is his right to make use out of such strange laws to escape jail. I see no reason however why prostitution should be illegal, and about USD 150,- for a woman’s life, I know cases where the life of… Read more »

0

| ReplyShareHide Replies ∧

Guest

Archy

3 years 5 months ago

“I see no reason however why prostitution should be illegal, and about USD 150,- for a woman’s life, I know cases where the life of a man taken by a woman was counted as zero. Totally zero.”
Murderers kill for all sorts of reasons, men, women, children get killed for zero. The title wasn’t meant to try say women got it worse or anything though.